Skip to main content
Glama

Landprice

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Within a Source

search_within
Read-onlyIdempotent

Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record. Pass the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result) plus a natural-language query; get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter, and every passage carries an offset so the agent can verify a verbatim quote. Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document. BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe document text to search inside (max ~200K chars).
limitNoMax passages to return (1-20, default 5).
queryYesNatural-language query — what passages do you want? E.g. "supply-chain risk", "fiscal year 2024 revenue", "drug interactions with warfarin".

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral traits: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char windows, a 200K char cap with truncation flag. This provides context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, pairing suggestion, technical details. No redundant or vague language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (passages with offsets and similarity scores) and behavior (truncation, flag). It covers key aspects for a search tool, though error handling could be mentioned but is not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning with examples for 'query' (e.g., 'supply-chain risk') and clarifies 'limit' default. This extra context goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (inside a fetched record), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded' and contrasting with fetching the whole document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It explains benefits like saving context and returning only relevant passages. It also mentions pairing with another tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, missing exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Landprice toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries. `ask_pipeworx_beta` is explicitly described as currently identical to `ask_pipeworx`, `discover_tools` overlaps with `suggest_questions`, and the six Polymarket tools (`bet_research`, `polymarket_edges`, `polymarket_arbitrage`, etc.) blur together for opportunity-finding. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case with a verb_noun or noun pattern (`ask_pipeworx`, `list_subscriptions`, `validate_claim`, `recent_changes`). The `polymarket_*` and `ask_pipeworx_*` families follow clear conventions. Minor deviations like `bet_research`, `entity_profile`, and `landprice_points` being noun-first are still readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a server named 'Landprice' when exactly one tool (`landprice_points`) actually concerns land prices. The vast majority of tools constitute an unrelated general-purpose data research and prediction-market platform, making the count feel bloated and scattershot relative to the server's stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual broad scope revealed by the tools — structured data lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory — the surface is reasonably complete with no obvious dead ends. However, for the 'Landprice' domain implied by the server name, coverage is nearly absent: only Japan is covered, with no other countries, address search, or property-level data.

Resources